Health educator Pam Killeen, posted the following news on Facebook:
Author Pam Killeen, at onoe of Michael Schmidt's Queen's Park news conferences
“CFRU (University of Guelph) student reporter, Alicja Grzadkowska, interviews Dr. Douglas Goff and Pam Killeen about the raw milk debate. My part of the interview where I discuss “swill” dairies was cut short. One hundred years ago, swill dairies were causing what was known as the “milk problem.” Unethical inner city stall-fed dairies were selling filthy milk. Instead of feeding cows what they’re designed to eat (grass), they fed them the refuse from local distilleries.
As a result, the cows were very sick. The contaminated milk from these swill dairies led to the death of many people, especially children. But, this problem was unique to these inner city dairies. In the countrysides, of Wisconsin and Pennsylvania for example (where the cows were out on pasture), this problem didn’t exist. LISTEN HERE — http://tinyurl.com/7nmewew (Air date December 2, 2011) Read more in my position paper — http://tinyurl.com/7n3elhR.
The Bovine 
Pam while this is interesting historical fact this has absolutely nothing the root issues surrounding this debate.
The issue will always be whether we are a free people with God given inalienable rights and able to make our own choices. Or are we the chattel property of the nanny state that knows what is best for us? The crux of this will never change.
Yes, in the early 20th century, the issue was to protect the public from crappy milk by enforcing pasteurization. That issue doesn’t apply in the early 21st century, where producer-to-consumer raw milk is a higher quality product than processed “milk” from big dairy. Now in the early 21st century, the issue is to protect big processed dairy’s monopsony over the farmers by prohibiting direct producer-to-consumer sales or requiring pasteurization and other regulations to make it uneconomical.
aed939 – we have a legal system where you can sue for damages if someone harms you. That is why a business gets liability insurance. If the damage is caused by gross neglect the damages may even rise to the level of being criminal in nature.
Again the safety or dangerousness of raw milk is a non issue – we have a legal system that currently handles raw beets, raw carrots, raw spinach, raw kale, raw radishes, raw corn, raw strawberries. All without the nanny state getting involved. Why in Hades can’t we handle raw milk the same freaking way without digressing into it’s relative safety?
If we approached automobiles the same way you would do a lot of walking every month! As automobile kill and maim a hell of a lot more people than raw milk has or ever will!
Are you sure you want to go this route? You are opening a Pandoras box my friend.
Pam Killeen has made a very valuable contribution. Even if you advocate the right to consume raw milk on the basis of individual rights, as I do, it is still helpful to learn the history of why those on the other side felt that there was some crisis that they needed to “do something” about.
Karen I don’t disagree and I said so. Her story is common knowledge to most that know the history of these draconian laws.
I hate to be so repetitive but people seems to be over dosing on fluoride by keeping safety as a point of debate.
There is no way that paradigm will hold up to any intellectual rigor. You are likely to lose the debate. And even if you win the other side can change their minds at any time and you are back to square one again.
You make and win the argument on a rights basis and IMHO you are standing on much firmer ground.